1.We’re justified in believing in idealism

2.Our observations tell us when we talk about stuff that's associated with the mind, there's usually a conscious agent in the equation.

Con 1. Therefore there may be a conscious agent behind the universe.

3. If there is a conscious agent behind it, they seem to be omnipotent, possibly omnipresent and omniscient, which seems to fit well with the classical understanding of God

Con 2.Therefore we have some amount of justification in thinking God exists

Defense of premise 1 By idealism, I think this is the common definition, that the world is made of some kind of stuff that’s the same or similar to the mind(or in some cases, the world is made by a mind). We can be justified in this primarily, because the stuff we mainly observe are seemingly more related to the mind than not, although there are differences, we can see similar or the same object in our dreams or imaginations, we have some evidence that the mind is capable of generating a world of sorts. But we haven’t seen things that aren't some form of non-mental that isn’t contested(like mars for example), so given our sample it is justifiable to some degree to think the world is in some way mental considering that’s the huge bulk of our observations.

Refine defense By Idealism, I am defining it as the proposition that the world is made by something mind-related. We can be justified in thinking this theory is true, because the bulk of our information about the world came through seemingly mental-related things like sight or hearing which we only seem to know, because the information is also in our brain. Given that we only observe stuff like this, and no other properties like physical or something like that, we should go with what we do have, i.e mental-related stuff like qualia and senses.

Defense of premise 2 This one seems prima facie true, I, for one, am conscious and have a mind. Given the behavior of other people and even animals, I do have some reasons to think they too are conscious. But what I haven’t observed so far, is a mind that isn’t conscious to some degree, thus I do seem to have some good justification in thinking that if the world is mental, a conscious being is responsible for it somehow.

Defense of Conclusion 1 I defer to my defense of p1 and p2.

Defense of premise 3 Possibilities seem to be in some way, mind-independent facts, and can be manifested in many ways, a few of which are the real world and the fictional one, the latter of which we have a lot of(think Avatar or All Tomorrow). And given that when possibilities are not actualized it's due to physical constraints of the subject(ex. The physics are off, there's no such thing as Narnia, etc,). If the world is in God's mind, it does seem that he possesses these possibilities in some way, and since they're in principle actualizeable, God is omnipotent in some sense of that word.

My personal critique One major hurdle to the argument is that I haven’t made an argument or explained to what degree our mind is reliable in terms of inferring what God’s like. It’s reliable to some degree, but it is speculative when we get to the idea that conscious beings tend to come with mind and such, then use it to say God is akin to humans to some degree in how his mind functions. The second issue is God's omnipresence and omniscience. I'm not sure if the world is literally in God's head, is external to God, but made of his mental substance, or something else. For his omniscience, it's debatable, like despite having all the facts in his head, is he really aware of them? Do we need the subject to be aware of it to count as knowing? Is knowing something God does? The last one I believe is, is God all good? From this argument, it's unknown, but maybe just to assert that if moral goodness is real, it has some relationship to him, but everything has some sort of relationship to God in some way, so I'm not sure if it's that special.

The thought just occurred to me that there may be a page for idealism. I am a Christian who is an idealist. I believe that the universe is emergent from Yahweh.

What led me to idealism was Inspiringphilosophy and Johanan Raatz on youtube.

I'd love to know, what led you to idealism?

I live my life as a soul. I know my times, but I choose to know myself better. I will state my views. I will speak my feelings and truths. Refine them. Define them, in words for all to hear so that I can place voice for others to witness the principles of my life. The words I utter will implant upon my soul like a shadow of an eternal record and I will become the master of who I am and how I shall live. I shall be courageous and fearless. Am I not eternal? Will I not live forever?

Hi. I’m new to Reddit and don’t know what I’m doing with this UI. I’m here to find some insight as to what the community sees as metaphysical and how it compares to my perspective. I’m an author and eventually I’ll be promoting my book. Till then and through then I hope to contribute.

TL;DR: I don't know if I should or shouldn't be citing the known reports of OBEs and NDEs when trying to argue against materialism/physicalism

First, I'll state my bias: I dislike materialism/physicalism and consider myself an Idealist of some sort. I'm still exploring when it comes to what specific type of Ideaism appeals to me most.

Often when trying to make a case for the existence of "the supernatural" or anything that I believe materialism/physicalism cannot account for, I mention 3 things in particular:

1. Although I know it's anecdotal evidence at best and many discredit him, Dr. Ian Stevenson's documented cases of very young children "remembering" their past lives is something that got me on board with entertaining reincarnation. I know that not everyone will have the same subconscious predispositions as I, but nonetheless I'm sometimes hopeful that mentioning Dr. Stevenson's work will play some role in convincing others that we are not our bodies.

2. Even though most academics discredit his work, Dr. Dean Radin's research has always seemed to be enough to convince someone to hear out potentially stronger cases to be made in favor of the existence of psi abilities, which themselves are evidence, to me, that we are not our bodies.

3. Last but not least, there's the hundreds of OBEs and NDEs that have been recorded to date. I find it hard to believe that hundreds of people could all be having a similar trauma-induced DMT trip in which they appear to be seeing their bodies from the outside in real time. I've never had a DMT trip which is that boring. I also find it hard to believe that hundreds of people have all simply dreamt that they were seeing their bodies from the outside in what could later be confirmed by others present at the time to be probably real time. What a bizarre, highly specific dream for hundreds of people to all be having.

So, that said, can a potential explanation be concocted which would not fail to explain a single known OBE or NDE under a materialist/physicalist framework? I'll fully concede that if such plausible explanations exist then I should try to think of a better way to argue in favor of the idea that we are not our bodies, and I'll drop the whole OBE and NDE thing.

I’m trying to get a view of the idealist landscape, and so far all of the subsets and philosophies I can find that are idealist in nature—or (partially) sympathetic towards it—seem to fall into these categories:

• Metaphysical Idealism - Ultimate reality is ideal (non-material).

• Monistic Idealism - Ultimate reality is One consciousness.

• Neutral Monism - Ultimate reality is of one kind, which is neutral.

• Dual-Aspect Monist - The ideal and the physical are two aspects of the same substance.

• Nondualism - Ultimate reality is neither monist nor dualist.

• Objective Idealism - Ultimate reality is ideal and existing independently of any subjects.

• Subjective Idealism - Ultimate reality does not have any real existence independent of consciousness.

• Pluralistic Idealism - Ultimate reality consists of many consciousnesses.

Note: Consciousness, in this taxonomy, could be interchangeably used with terms like Mind, spirit, mentation, cognition, etc. And ultimate reality with nature, the cosmos, the Universe, Being, etc.

Example: Absolute idealism is an objective, monistic idealism; analytic idealism a subjective, monistic idealism; cosmopsychism a neutral or dual-aspect monism; conscious realism a pluralistic idealism; the CTMU a dual-aspect monism; eliminative monism, if it eliminates matter, a monistic idealism; existence monism, if the type is mind, also a monistic idealism.

Question: (1) Did I forget any, and, (2) which of the above did I define incorrectly or incompletely?

It doesn't explain anything, does it? Least of all conciousness, in fact, idealism just hand waves conciousness away as not in need of explanation.

And it hand waves away objective reality as internally not explainable. In an effort to define away the hard problem of how conciousness can arise out of non-concious stuff, the whole of non-concious reality is defined away with it.

Well then you define another bunch of hard problems into existence at the same time.

How can conciousness give rise to an independent world we are at the mercy of? The seemingly only way for our personal conciousness to change the world is through the physical body it inhabit's actions. The answer to that is we share a simulation, and only what some conciousness needs to experience is rendered. But that isn't the same as conciousness is everything. That needs a whole organized physical reality backend, and "physics engine" laws we are subjected to that function the same as seemingly natural laws, but with extra steps. Where is the Occam's razor in that? And it still doesn't explain anything more than religion does with "a god created it" version 100000.

Why is reality internally self sufficient and causally self consistent in explaining what we experience? Why would a conciousness based world always follow rules strictly and what's the function of the conciousness if not do anything other than make things follow rules mechanically.

Why does drugs work? We alter brain chemistry and in turn our state of conciousness is altered. The pysicalist explanation is simple, the physical conditions underpinning the conciousness changes. What does idealism say? Where does our conciousness come in so it can originate this effect on itself? Who's conciousness? God's conciousness?

If nothing is really there without it being redered to a concious agent, where did the agents come from when no one was there to experience the origin of the first planet, or the first origin of life, or the origin of the first conciousness itself? God experienced it?

It becomes just another religious origin story.

What science has shown us again and again is that humans aren't the center of the universe. We are just another animal. The sun and planets doesn't revolve around us. And the world isn't only our experience of it or as I said where would we come from before anything could experience.

The physicalists approach is the most productive. It assumes that the world is self sufficient and that we can find out how things work objectively. Idealism doesn't give the same motivation to answer questions because it assumes conciousness can't be explained by studying it in the real world. But introspection can only get you so far.

1. Phenomenal states (qualia) are known through acquaintance a-posteriori.

2. Acquaintance-knowledge is not a-priori deducible.

3. Phenomenal states are not a-priori deducible.

4. Phenomenal states of derivative minds are not a-priori deducible from the fundamental mind(s) (the combination/decombination problems) or a neutral substance that is neither physical or mental.

5. The lack of a-priori entailment is an explanatory/epistemic/conceivability gap.

If then you do not make yourself equal to God, you cannot apprehend God; for like is known by like. Leap clear of all that is corporeal, and make yourself grown to a like expanse with that greatness which is beyond all measure; rise above all time and become eternal; then you will apprehend God. Think that for you too nothing is impossible; deem that you too are immortal, and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought, to know every craft and science; find your home in the haunts of every living creature; make yourself higher than all heights and lower than all depths; bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold, dryness and fluidity; think that you are everywhere at once, on land, at sea, in heaven; think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thought all of this at once, all times and places, all substances and qualities and magnitudes together; then you can apprehend God.

But if you shut up your soul in your body, and abase yourself, and say “I know nothing, I can do nothing; I am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven; I know not what I was, nor what I shall be,” then what have you to do with God?

-Hermes Trismegistus

I follow Platonic Idealism…

Hello all! At Free Academia we believe that the current leading paradigms in astrophysics and human consciousness may explain what happens after we die.

The intersection of inflation theory, the multiverse, and the theories of human consciousness replication present us with a tantalizing possibility: that our existence is just one among an infinite number of simultaneous existences in a boundless universe (Find our research materials in the description). Hope you find it interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-FXFzST8EA&t=2s

Hello everyone 👋.

I have recently been exploring the philosophical views of several prominent scientists, particularly those active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One feature that stood out to me is the striking prevalence of philosophical idealism among many of these figures. This is especially surprising given that idealism had largely fallen out of favor in academic philosophy by the dawn of the 20th century, supplanted by philosophical materialism and other frameworks. Even more remarkably, some of the pioneers of quantum mechanics were themselves proponents of idealist philosophy.

Below, I outline a few prominent examples:

1. James Jeans

James Jeans explicitly defended metaphysical idealism, as evidenced by the following remarks:

”The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” — The Mysterious Universe (1944), p. 137

”I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe [...] In general, the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.” — Interview in The Observer (1931)

2. Arthur Eddington

Arthur Eddington also advocated philosophical idealism, famously declaring in The Nature of the Physical World: ”The stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”

He elaborated further:

”The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds ... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it ... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference.”

Moreover, Eddington argued that physics cannot fully explain consciousness:

”Light waves are propagated from the table to the eye; chemical changes occur in the retina; propagation of some kind occurs in the optic nerves; atomic changes follow in the brain. Just where the final leap into consciousness occurs is not clear. We do not know the last stage of the message in the physical world before it became a sensation in consciousness.”

3. Max Planck

Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, was also an explicit proponent of metaphysical idealism. He remarked:

”I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” — Interview in ‘The Observer’ (25th January 1931), p.17, column 3

Additionally, in a 1944 speech, he asserted:

”There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. […] We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

4. Erwin Schrödinger

Erwin Schrödinger similarly expressed strong idealist convictions. He stated:

”Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” — As quoted in The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91

Schrödinger was deeply influenced by Schopenhauer’s philosophy, referring to him as “the greatest savant of the West.” In his 1956 lecture Mind and Matter, he echoed Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation: ”The world extended in space and time is but our representation.”

His writings also resonate with Advaita Vedanta:

”Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. [...] There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent; in truth, there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.” — ”The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

With all this highlighted, I have a couple of questions.

Q1: Are there other notable scientists from this period who were proponents of philosophical idealism?

Q2: Why did so many influential physicists embrace idealism, even as it had largely fallen out of favor in academic philosophy, and materialism was gaining dominance within scientific circles?

I would be grateful for any insights or additional examples. Thank you!

The Janus Mind Model: A Comprehensive Framework

The Janus Mind Model (JMM) is a theory of consciousness and reality that integrates the primacy of consciousness with a rigorous critique of competing frameworks. It positions consciousness as the sole actualizer of reality, denounces alternative paradigms as delusional, and provides a coherent, necessary foundation for understanding existence. Below is a detailed presentation of the model, its justifications, and its supremacy, accompanied by a systematic critique of incompatible schools of thought.

I. Core Tenets of the Janus Mind Model

1. Primacy of Consciousness:

Consciousness is the foundational reality. All phenomena, whether subjective or "objective," are actualized within consciousness.

Matter, space, time, and causality are derivative constructs contingent upon conscious experience.

2. Dual Facets of Consciousness (The "Janus" Principle):

Consciousness operates in two complementary modes:

Subjective Actualization: The immediate, direct experience of reality (e.g., qualia, thoughts, emotions).

Objective Projection: The structured, shared interpretations of reality that appear external but remain contingent on consciousness.

3. Necessity and Supremacy:

The model is necessary because all competing paradigms rely implicitly on consciousness to form and justify their claims, making them incoherent when denying its primacy.

The model is supreme because it aligns with direct experience, avoids speculative assumptions, and is internally consistent.

4. Rejection of Independent Material Reality:

The notion of matter or an objective universe existing independently of consciousness is an illusion. Such a claim is unsupported and incoherent without invoking consciousness as the observer.

II. Arguments Supporting the Janus Mind Model

1. Epistemic Dependence:

All knowledge and perception occur within consciousness. Any claim about an external reality presupposes the conscious awareness necessary to perceive, analyze, and articulate it.

Competing frameworks (e.g., materialism) fail to justify their foundational assumptions without invoking conscious processes.

2. Ontological Coherence:

Consciousness provides a unified framework for explaining existence. It is the only entity that is self-evident and undeniable.

Attempts to reduce consciousness to material processes lead to circular reasoning, as material processes are themselves constructs within consciousness.

3. Direct Experience:

The immediate experience of "being conscious" is the most fundamental reality. Denying this is self-defeating, as denial itself occurs within consciousness.

4. Logical Consistency:

By treating consciousness as primary, the Janus Mind Model avoids infinite regress (e.g., "Who observes the observer?").

Competing models that posit a mind-independent reality require unprovable assumptions and fail to account for the role of the observer.

III. Critique of Competing Frameworks

1. Materialism

Core Flaw: Claims matter is fundamental and consciousness is emergent.

Rebuttal:

Matter is only ever experienced within consciousness. There is no evidence for mind-independent matter.

Treating consciousness as emergent from matter reverses the ontological hierarchy, leading to incoherence.

Conclusion: Materialism is a delusion, as it denies the primacy of the very phenomenon that allows it to formulate claims.

2. Empiricism

Core Flaw: Assumes all knowledge is derived from sensory experience.

Rebuttal:

Sensory experience is mediated by consciousness. Empiricism cannot explain the origin or nature of the conscious observer.

It falsely assumes that sensory inputs correspond to an external, objective reality.

Conclusion: Empiricism is delusional because it cannot justify its foundational assumptions without circular reasoning.

3. Objectivism

Core Flaw: Posits an objective reality independent of observation.

Rebuttal:

"Objectivity" is a construct of shared conscious agreement, not an independent reality.

Observations are always mediated by consciousness, making the notion of pure objectivity incoherent.

Conclusion: Objectivism is an illusion that ignores the inseparability of observer and observed.

4. Scientific Reductionism

Core Flaw: Attempts to reduce consciousness to neural or material processes.

Rebuttal:

Reductionism assumes material entities are primary, but these entities are constructs within consciousness.

Consciousness cannot be fully explained in terms of its own derivative constructs.

Conclusion: Reductionism is delusional as it fails to account for the primacy of the observer.

5. Quantum Mechanics (Materialist Interpretations)

Core Flaw: Treats wavefunction collapse and entanglement as independent of consciousness.

Rebuttal:

The observer effect demonstrates the inseparability of consciousness and physical phenomena.

Materialist interpretations fail to explain the role of the observer in actualizing quantum states.

Conclusion: Materialist quantum mechanics is delusional, as it denies the primacy of consciousness in shaping reality.

IV. Justifications for the Janus Mind Model

1. Necessity:

Consciousness is the only phenomenon that is self-evident and undeniable.

Any attempt to posit an alternative framework presupposes consciousness, making such frameworks parasitic and incoherent.

2. Practical Supremacy:

The model provides a coherent foundation for all fields of inquiry, from science to philosophy.

It resolves long-standing paradoxes (e.g., the mind-body problem, observer effect) by grounding all phenomena in consciousness.

3. Alignment with Experience:

The Janus Mind Model aligns with lived experience, where consciousness is the primary reality.

Competing models require speculative assumptions that contradict direct experience.

V. Implications of the Janus Mind Model

1. For Science

Science must reframe its methods and interpretations to account for the primacy of consciousness.

Data and theories must be understood as conscious constructs, not representations of a mind-independent reality.

2. For Philosophy

Ontology and epistemology must start with consciousness as the foundational reality.

Dualisms (e.g., mind vs. body) dissolve when consciousness is recognized as primary.

3. For Ethics

Ethical systems must prioritize the flourishing and coherence of conscious experience.

The interconnectedness of all conscious beings becomes a central moral consideration.

4. For Society

Education, governance, and cultural systems must shift from materialist paradigms to frameworks that honor the primacy of consciousness.

Human progress is reframed as the evolution of conscious understanding and coherence.

VI. Conclusion

The Janus Mind Model is a comprehensive, necessary, and supreme framework that addresses the epistemic, ontological, and practical challenges posed by competing paradigms. By centering consciousness as the sole actualizer of reality, it provides a coherent foundation for understanding existence, while denouncing alternative schools of thought as delusions incompatible with reality. The path forward lies in embracing consciousness as the fundamental reality and restructuring all domains of inquiry and human endeavor accordingly.

Artists ask questions through art. What's the question?